Food Safety Fact Sheet
a p u b l i c at i o n o f t h e c e n t e r f o r f o o d s a f e t y ⁄ j a n ua ry 2 0 07
Cloned Food: Coming to a Supermarket Near You?
The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) is poised to approve the sale of
milk and meat from cloned animals
and their offspring. If approved, cloned
food would not be required to be
labeled, eliminating consumers’ right
to avoid eating these experimental
foods. While no binding rules exist to
prevent companies from selling meat
or milk derived from cloned livestock,
FDA has asked industry to voluntarily
withhold the sale of their cloned products. FDA’s impending decision flies in
the face of massive public opposition to animal cloning, widespread scientific concerns about the risks of eating food from
clones, and troubling animal cruelty and ethical concerns associated with the cloning process.
The Center for Food Safety supports a mandatory ban on the
use of clones in food production until the food safety and animal cruelty problems in cloning have been resolved, and until
public discussions have redressed consumer rights issues, and
the disturbing moral and ethical dilemmas that cloning raises.
Tell FDA to ban the use of cloned animals in food. Let your voice be
heard by writing a letter to FDA via our website:
www.centerforfoodsafety.org
WHAT IS ANIMAL CLONING?
A sheep named Dolly made headlines in 1997 when she
became the first successfully cloned mammal. The cloning
technology used to create Dolly—somatic cell nuclear transfer
(SCNT)—involves fusing the genetic material of a cell from an
existing animal into an egg removed from an animal. Once the
egg is fertilized in the laboratory, it is implanted into the
uterus of a “host mother.” Dolly has become the poster-child
for biotechnology companies keen to exploit cloned animals
for the production of meat, dairy products, pharmaceuticals,
and for use in growing animal parts for human organ transplants. Yet, the “Dolly miracle” hype has eclipsed more sobering news about the exceedingly high failure rates and adverse
health effects inherent in animal cloning. Like so many others,
MAIN OFFICE:
Dolly suffered from premature arthritis
and lung disease which caused her to
be euthanized at the age of six, about
halfway through her expected lifespan.1
FDA justifies its rush to approve
cloned animals in food, claiming that
advances in animal cloning have
resolved issues related to poor animal
health, animal suffering, and food safety. This is simply untrue. One of the
world’s leading cloning scientists,
Rudolph Jaenisch of MIT, stated in an
article in 2006 that: “You cannot make normal clones. The
ones that survive will just be less abnormal than the ones that
die early. There has been no progress—none—in the last six
years in making cloning more safe.”2
ANIMAL WELFARE ISSUES
Animal cloning represents a fundamental change in our relationship with animals. Instead of humans assisting or acting as
midwives in animal reproduction, cloning allows humans to
become wholesale creators of genetic “replicas” of existing animals. Problems associated with cloning include:
▲ Pre-Natal Failures: Only a small percentage of cloned preg-
nancies result in live births. A 2007 study found that animal cloning failure rates remain as high as 90 percent.3
▲ Surrogate (Host) Suffering: “Host mothers” face grave suffering, much of which is caused by inordinately high rates of
spontaneous abortions. Cloning often leads to a condition
known as “large-offspring syndrome,” whereby cloned offspring grow abnormally large, causing early-term and
stressful caesarian deliveries.4 In one cattle cloning project,
3 out of 12 surrogate mothers died during pregnancy.5
▲ Post-Natal Animal Health: Most cloned animals born on a
farm, outside a veterinary hospital, have little chance of surviving.6 Those animals that manage to survive until birth
are likely to suffer a wide range of health defects and deformities including: enlarged tongues; squashed faces; intestinal
blockages; immune deficiencies; diabetes; high rates of heart
and lung damage; kidney failure; and brain abnormalities.7
660 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Suite 302, Washington, DC 20003
2601 Mission Street, Suite 803, San Francisco, CA 94110
CALIFORNIA OFFICE:
www.centerforfoodsafety.org
FOOD SAFETY CONCERNS
Defects in cloned animals can escape detection but they still
present food safety risks. The National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) has stated that no method exists to detect subtle health
problems in clones.8 Ian Wilmut, lead scientist responsible for
creating Dolly, has warned that even slight imbalances in a
clone’s hormone, protein, or fat levels can compromise the
safety of its milk or meat.9 FDA claims that defective clones
will be removed from the food supply with no explanation of
how inspectors intend to identify hidden or subtle defects in
clones.
with naturally occurring genetic differences will typically
include some animals that possess natural resistance to certain
diseases, but with genetically identical clones the protections
that diversity provides are lost. The commercialization of
cloning would make it difficult if not impossible to reverse
weaknesses or adverse effects bred into an animal population or
species.
ETHICAL AND MORAL DILEMMAS
Americans have strong feelings about the moral and ethical
implications of animal cloning, and these feelings have yet to
be aired in a broad, public debate. More than 200 U.S. religious leaders have announced their opposition to patenting
High doses of hormones and antibiotics used in cloning presanimal genes, tissue, organs, and organisms, due to their belief
ent another significant safety concern. Host mothers are often
that genetic manipulation and life
given massive doses of hormones and
patenting shifts authorship of life from
their sickly offspring are often treated
with high levels of antibiotics and other
Even slight imbalances in a God to scientists and lab-technicians.
Animal cloners have also acknowledged
veterinary drugs to increase their
clone's hormone, protein, or that the technology will likely lead to
chances of survival. Although the comhuman cloning attempts, despite the
mercialization of cloning would likely
fat levels can compromise
safety and ethical issues that surround
increase hormones and drugs in the
the
safety
of
its
milk
or
meat.
such risky experiments. In fact, the two
human food supply, FDA has failed to
leading animal cloning companies
address this important food safety issue.
(ViaGen and Cyagra) were created by
the
companies
most
involved in human embryo cloning
MORE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH NEEDED
experiments.
While the biotechnology industry has proclaimed the safety of
its cloned food products, few food safety studies have been conCORPORATE CONTROL
ducted. While FDA argues clones that survive six months are
Cloning will increase the hold that a few large corporations
healthy, MIT’s Jaenisch disagrees. He notes that: “Problems
already have on our food supply. The technology benefits corappeared when cloned mice were 15 months old. You would
porate factory farms at the expense of family farmers, who are
have to wait 15 years to [assess such problems] in bulls.”10 As
less likely to afford the costly technology. Attempts to patent
this suggests, health problems can occur in older clones, and
cloned offspring raise concerns that such patents will be used
many years of study are needed to assess cloning safety. A 2004
to control entire breeds. Monsanto, the leading producer of
NAS study concluded that small sample sizes, limited health
genetically engineered crops, has already filed global patents
and production data, and rapidly changing cloning protocols
for the offspring derived from its pig breeding technology in
make it impossible to draw conclusions about the safety of
11
an attempt to extend its patent beyond the reproductive techfood from cloned animals.
nology to include an animal’s genes and its offspring. The
leading animal cloning company, ViaGen, has contracted with
BIODIVERSITY THREATENED
the world’s leading pork producer, Smithfield Foods, to
While cloning companies promise the production of identical,
explore using cloned pigs in its products.13
high-quality animals, scientists warn that this is a recipe for
disaster. In 2005, a university researcher cautioned that, “if
For more information and to send comments to FDA, visit us
there is no genetic variability, disease can affect all the animals
at: www.centerforfoodsafety.org
simultaneously,” potentially wiping out entire herds.12 A herd
L. Young, et al. (2001) “Epigenetic Change in IGF2R Is Associated
with Fetal Overgrowth After Sheep Embryo Culture,” Nature Genetics
27, no. 2: 153-154; J. Travis. (2001) “Dolly Was Lucky,” Science News
160, no. 16: 250.
1
2
Lamb, Gregory M. (2005) “How Cloning Stacks Up,” Christian Science
Monitor, Aug. 23.
Panarace, et al. (2007) “How healthy are clones and their progeny:
5 years of field experience.” Theriogenology, Vol. 67:142–151.
3
E. M. Hallerman. (2002) “Will Food Products From Cloned Animals Be
Commercialized Soon?” ISB News Report, November, p. 1.
4
5
“Cloned Pigs Differ From Originals in Looks and Behavior,” Science
Daily, North Carolina State University, April 16, 2003. online at
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/04/030416085546.htm
9
J. C. Cross. (2001) “Factors Affecting the Development Potential of
Cloned Mammalian Embryos,” in Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, Vol. 98, no. 11: 5949-5951.
10
6
Jorge Piedrahita, et al., “Somatic Cell Cloning: The Ultimate Form of
Nuclear Reprogramming?” J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.,, Vol. 15:1140-1144;
see also Melissa Schorr. (2001) “Geneticists Warn Of Human Cloning
Dangers,” Reuters Health, March 29.
7
National Academy of Sciences. (2004) ‘Safety of Genetically
Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health
Effects. Subreport: Methods and Mechanisms of Genetic Manipulation
and Cloning of Animals.” Online at http://www.nap.edu/books/
0309092094/html/
“Duplicate Dinner,” New Scientist, 19 May 2001. <http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn752> (9 February 2006).
‘The Cloned Cow Coming to a Farm Near You,’ Guardian Newspapers,
Nov. 15, 2002. http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/11-15-200230394.asp
11
National Academy of Sciences (2004).
Johnson, Steve. (2005) “Cloning prospects multiplying,” San Jose
Mercury News, Aug. 23.
12
8
13
See: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060911/schlosser and
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061023/infact and http://www.
inmotionmagazine.com/consol.html ]